REPORT NO.
UCD/CGMDR-XX/XX
CENTER FOR GEOTECHNICAL MODELING
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT IN
DENSE URBAN ENVIRONMENTS:
CENTRIFUGE DATA REPORT FOR TEST-5
BY
J. D. ZUPAN
N. W. TROMBETTA
H. PUANGNAK
D. PAEZ
J. D. BRAY
B. L. KUTTER
T. C. HUTCHINSON
G. L. FIEGEL
C. BOLISETTI
A. S. WHITTAKER
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS
April 2013
Centrifuge Data Report
Test-5
JD Zupan, NW Trombetta, H Puangnak, D Paez, JD Bray, BL
Kutter, TC Hutchinson, GL Fiegel, C Bolisetti, AS Whittaker
30 April 2013
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation
(NSF) under Grant No. CMMI-0830331 through the George E. Brown, Jr. Network
for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES). The “Seismic Performance
Assessment in Dense Urban Environments: Soil-Structure Interaction on the Scale
of a City Block” project is a collaborative effort that includes the University of
California, Berkeley (lead institution), University of Buffalo-SUNY, University of
California, Davis, University of California, San Diego, California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo, and the Consortium of Universities for Research in
Earthquake Engineering. This project utilizes the NEES equipment site at the
University of California, Davis. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.
1
NEESR-SG Project: “Seismic Performance Assessment in Dense Urban
Environments”
Centrifuge Data Report for Test-5
Josh Zupan, Nicholas Trombetta, Hamilton Puangnak, Daniel Paez, Jonathan Bray, Bruce Kutter,
Tara Hutchinson, Gregg Fiegel, Chandrakanth Bolisetti, Andrew Whittaker
Date:
April 30, 2013
Total Experiment Duration:
January 3 – March 25, 2012
Dates of Testing:
March 15 and March 19, 2012
Project:
Seismic Performance Assessment in Dense Urban Environments
NSF Contract Number:
CMMI-0830331
Sponsor(s):
NSF
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No.
CMMI-0830331 through the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
(NEES). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. The authors would like to acknowledge
the suggestions and assistance of Dan Wilson, Chad Justice, Ray Gerhard, Anatoliy Ganchenko, Lars
Pederson and the rest of the staff at the Center for Geotechnical Modeling at UC Davis. The authors
would also like to acknowledge and thank UC Davis Ph.D. student Jacquelyn Allmond and University of
Colorado Boulder Assistant Professor Shideh Dashti for their valuable advice throughout this experiment.
This experiment was performed using the large geotechnical centrifuge at UC Davis. The NSF, NASA,
and the University of California supported the development of this centrifuge. Additional support was
obtained from Tyndall Air Force Base, the Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory and Los Alamos National
Laboratories. The large shaker was funded by the California Department of Transportation, the Obayashi
Corporation, NSF and the University of California. Recent upgrades have been funded by NSF award
#CMS-086566 through the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
(NEES).
Conditions and Limitations
Permission is granted for the use of these data for publication in the open literature, provided that the
authors and sponsors are properly acknowledged. It is essential that the authors be consulted prior to
2
publication to discuss the errors or limitations in the data not known at the time of the release of this
report. In particular, there may be later releases of this report. Questions about this report may be directed
by e-mail to: cgm@ucdavis.edu.
3
Table of Contents
Previous Tests in this Series ................................................................................................... 5
Purpose and Configuration of Test-5 ..................................................................................... 8
Scale Factors ........................................................................................................................ 13
Soil and Pore Fluid Properties ............................................................................................. 13
Model Structures .................................................................................................................. 15
Model Construction ............................................................................................................. 20
As-Built Model ..................................................................................................................... 31
Instrumentation and Measurements .................................................................................... 32
Centrifuge Test Chronology................................................................................................. 33
Data Processing .................................................................................................................... 35
Cone Penetration Testing ..................................................................................................... 35
Known Limitations............................................................................................................... 36
Organization of Appendices ................................................................................................. 38
References ............................................................................................................................ 39
4
PREVIOUS TESTS IN THIS SERIES
This data report describes the fifth centrifuge test in a sequence of six tests designed with the
overarching goal of developing an understanding of structure-soil-structure interaction (SSSI) in dense
urban environments. The experiment described herein was preceded HBM02 (Test-1), HBM03 (Test-2),
HBM04 (Test-3), and NWT01 (Test-4). Data reports for previous experiments (Mason et al., 2010a,
2010b, 2010c and Trombetta et al., 2011) are available online through NEESHub (www.nees.org). All
experiments were performed at the NEES@UC Davis equipment site facility (also known as the Center
for Geotechnical Modeling or CGM).
Test-1 focused on evaluating the effects of soil-structure-interaction (SSI) on isolated inelastic
frame structures subjected to simulated earthquake induced ground motions. The experiment consisted of
a single-story model scale inelastic frame (three-story prototype) with shallow spread footings and a
three-story model scale inelastic frame (nine-story prototype) with a deep basement, positioned far
enough from each other to avoid SSSI during large earthquakes. Test-2 consisted of the same two
structures positioned directly adjacent to each other to study the changes in the flexible base responses of
each structure as a result of structural adjacency. In addition to the data reports available through
NEEShub, the results of Test-1 and Test-2 are summarized by Mason et al. (2013) and Trombetta et al.
(2013).
Test-3 consisted of an isolated inelastic frame structure on shallowly embedded spread footings
and a configuration consisting of the same type of frame structure adjacent to an elastic shear wall
structure. As in Test-1 and Test-2, the inelastic frame structures were one-story at model scale but
intended to represent three-story prototypes. The adjacent structures were aligned in the direction of
applied shaking. The relative locations of the structures during Test-3 are illustrated in Figure 1. Both
types of structures used during this experiment were designed to have a first, flexible base mode
approximately equivalent to the estimated site period in order to achieve maximum energy transfer from
both the soil to the structure and from the structure back into the soil after strong shaking. More detail
regarding the design considerations for the structures used in Test-3 is provided in Mason et al., 2010c.
Comparison of the response of the isolated frame structure to the non-isolated frame during Test-3
provided a basis for identifying in-plane SSSI (iSSSI or, alternatively, end-to-end rocking) effects and the
resulting changes in structural response.
Test-4 was a natural progression from Test-3 and consisted of the same types of inelastic frame
and elastic shear wall structures utilized in Test-3. Like Test-3, two sub-configurations were studied in
Test-4: (1) an inelastic frame structure placed adjacent to an elastic shear wall structure with the
alignment perpendicular to the direction of applied shaking, and (2) an inelastic frame structure with an
adjacent elastic shear wall structure aligned in the direction of applied shaking and an elastic shear wall
structure aligned in the direction perpendicular to the direction of applied shaking. The Test-4
configuration is illustrated in Figure 2. A comparison of the data obtained from the northern subconfigurations during Test-3 and Test-4 enabled the identification of anti-plane SSSI (aSSSI or,
alternatively, side-to-side rocking) effects. The response of the inelastic frame structure in the southern
sub-configuration of Test-4 was hypothesized to contain both iSSSI and aSSSI effects. Trombetta et al.
(2011) provide more detail regarding Test-4.
5
FIGURE 1. (TOP) PLAN VIEW OF THE HBM04 (TEST-3) CONFIGURATION.
(BOTTOM) ELEVATION VIEW OF HBM04 (TEST-3) CONFIGURATION.
6
FIGURE 2. (TOP IMAGE) PLAN VIEW OF THE TEST-4 CONFIGURATION.
(BOTTOM IMAGE) ELEVATION VIEW, FROM WEST-TO-EAST, OF THE TEST-4 CONFIGURATION.
Test-1 through Test-4 were performed with a uniform soil profile consisting of dry Nevada sand
pluviated to a relative density of approximately 80%. As described by Mason (2011), the prototype site
for this research project was located in downtown Los Angeles, CA (N34.082, W118.224) and the
uniform soil profile of dry, dense, Nevada sand was a reasonable model of the deep, dense, sandy soil
basins characteristic of the Los Angeles, CA region. An added benefit of this soil profile was that a large
number of simulated intense earthquake ground motions could be applied, in sequence, without the added
complexity of ground failure. Consequently, a large amount of data could be collected during each
experiment using a comprehensive suite of earthquake ground motions.
7
PURPOSE AND CONFIGURATION OF TEST-5
The 1964 Niigata Earthquake (Niigata, Japan), 1990 Luzon Earthquake (Dagupan City,
Philippines), 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake (Adapazari, Turkey), and the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake
sequence on the south island of New Zealand have provided many examples of damage to buildings and
lifelines due to seismically induced soil liquefaction. Field observations following these important events
have motivated earthquake engineering researchers to perform detailed studies of the seismic performance
of isolated, rigid, shallow foundations sited atop soils with high liquefaction potential using physical
modeling, and several physical models have been tested using the large geotechnical centrifuge at the
CGM (e.g., Hausler, 2002; Dashti, 2009).
Although previous centrifuge experiments have proven to be successful in identifying the
underlying mechanisms of liquefaction induced building displacements, they have thus far been limited to
the study of isolated buildings. In accordance with the goals of Seismic Performance Assessment in
Dense Urban Environments (referred to also as the NEES City Block (NCB) project), a comparative
approach was employed during Test-5 to explore the effects of building adjacency on the response of
structures subjected to realistic earthquake ground motions sited atop soils with high liquefaction
potential. Consequently, the soil profile constructed for Test-5 contained a loose to medium dense layer
of Nevada sand and the soil profile was saturated with viscous pore fluid. Model structures previously
used by Dashti (2009) and Allmond and Kutter (2012) were used in so that the results from this
experiment could be compared with results of recent, similar, experiments studying isolated structures.
The Test-5 configuration is illustrated in Figure 3 (model scale units) and consisted of four
quadrants. The northwest quadrant contained an isolated single degree of freedom (SDOF) model
structure intended to represent a 2-story prototype building on a rigid mat foundation. This model
building type will be referred to from this point forward as an 'A' building as it was originally
implemented as building type 'A' in previous work by Dashti (2009). The purpose of the northwest
quadrant was to establish the response of an 'A' building in relative isolation. This was the control case
upon which the responses of the other 'A' buildings were to be compared. The northeast quadrant
consisted of two 'A' buildings located adjacent to one another and separated by approximately 3 mm
(model scale units). The objective with the northeast quadrant was to study the response of adjacent,
identical, buildings. The southwest quadrant consisted of an 'A' building and a larger SDOF model
structure with a shallow, rigid, foundation, referred to from this point forward as a 'J' building. The 'J'
building was originally implemented in work performed by Allmond and Kutter (2012) and is intended to
represent a prototype column supporting a superstructure. Allmond and Kutter (2012) employed six
identical 'J' buildings to represent a prototype bridge. The objective of the southwest quadrant was to
study the response of an 'A' building located approximately 3 mm from a much larger, yet still relatively
simple building, on a shallow foundation. The southeast quadrant consisted of an 'A' building located
approximately 3 mm from a 'J' building founded on piles.
A total of 61 ICP accelerometers, 18 MEMS, 26 PPTs, and 32 LPs were incorporated into the
Test-5 plan. The locations of these instruments are illustrated in Figures 4-6 and the "Instrumentation and
Measurements" section of this report provides more detail regarding the characteristics of the instruments
used for this test. Figures 3-6 can be downloaded from NEEShub (www.nees.org) and the coordinates of
8
all soils instruments relative to the origin at the northwest corner of the top of the top ring of the model
container are provided in sensor files that have been uploaded to NEEShub.
The centrifugal acceleration used for this test was approximately fifty-five times the acceleration
of gravity (55g) at the designated effective radius - consistent with previous tests in the NCB testing
series, and also consistent with the centrifugal accelerations used by Dashti (2009) and Allmond and
Kutter (2012). For the purposes of Test-5 the effective radius was designated to correspond with the
center of the loose to medium dense Nevada sand layer at the center of the model container. Simulated
earthquake ground motions were applied at the base of the model container in the north-south direction.
In total, Test-5 consisted of 11 shaking events. These events included 6 step waves and 5 ground
motions. The step waves were used to level the bucket of the centrifuge, warm-up the shaking table, and
allow the research team to check instrumentation.
9
FIGURE 3. (TOP) PLAN VIEW OF THE TEST-5 CONFIGURATION. (CENTER) PROFILE VIEW ALONG SECTION E-E'.
(BOTTOM) PROFILE VIEW ALONG SECTION W-W'.
10
FIGURE 4. (TOP) PLAN VIEW OF ACCELEROMETERS. (CENTER) PROFILE VIEW OF ACCELEROMETERS ALONG SECTION
E-E'. (BOTTOM) PROFILE VIEW OF ACCELEROMETERS ALONG SECTION W-W'.
11
FIGURE 5. (TOP) PLAN VIEW OF PPTS. (CENTER) PROFILE VIEW OF PPTS ALONG SECTION E-E'. (BOTTOM) PROFILE
VIEW OF PPTS ALONG SECTION W-W'.
12
FIGURE 6. PLAN VIEW OF LPS.
SCALE FACTORS
Employing a scale factor converts data between the prototype and model scale. Important scaling
factors are given in Table 1, where N represents the centrifugal acceleration in g. For Test-5, N = 55 corresponding to a target rotational velocity of 75.9 RPM. For additional information regarding scale
factors, as well as more wide-ranging seismic centrifuge testing topics, see Kutter (1995).
TABLE 1. IMPORTANT SCALE FACTORS FOR CENTRIFUGE TESTING; N= CENTRIFUGAL ACCELERATION
Quantity
Density
Dynamic Time
Force
Frequency
Length
Mass
Period
Strain
Stress
Model Dimension/
Prototype Dimension
1
1/N
1/N2
N
1/N
1/N3
1/N
1
1
SOIL AND PORE FLUID PROPERTIES
As illustrated in Figure 3, the subsurface profile for Test-5 consisted of 34 mm (approximately
1.9 m prototype) of dense Monterey 0/30 sand at the surface, underlain by 81 mm (approximately 4.5 m
prototype) of loose to medium dense Nevada sand, underlain by 353 mm (approximately 19.4 m
13
prototype) of dense Nevada sand. The model was saturated using a solution of hydroxypropyl
methylcellulose (HPMC) and water with a target kinematic viscosity of approximately twenty times the
kinematic viscosity of water. The initial concentration of HPMC was based on recommendations
provided by Stewart et al., 1998. The concentration was then adjusted, as necessary, following regular
fluid viscosity tests using an Ubbelohde type viscometer. The target pore fluid table (referred to from this
point forward as the groundwater table (GWT)), indicated on Figure 3, was at the base of the foundations
of the model 'A' structures, at a depth of 15 mm (approximately 0.83 m prototype) below the soil surface.
Nevada sand is a mined, non-processed, material. Consequently, the engineering properties of
Nevada sand are not constant and will change with each batch delivered to the CGM. The batch of
Nevada sand used during Test-5 was tested by Cooper Testing Labs in August of 2010 to evaluate
representative characteristics of the material. The laboratory tests consisted of a particle size distribution,
determination of the minimum and maximum index unit weight (ASTM D4254 and ASTM D4253), and
the determination of the specific gravity of the material (ASTM D854). Key results from the laboratory
tests are summarized in Table 2.
As described by Wu (2002), Monterey 0/30 sand is a type of commercially available washed and
sieved beach sand. It can be classified as uniform, medium-grained, sub-rounded, clean sand composed
primarily of white to tan quartz grains with a smaller amount of darker feldspar and mica grains (Wu,
2002; Kammerer, 2002). The average grain size, D50, is typically on the order of 0.35mm to 0.45mm and
the coefficient of uniformity, Cu, has been reported by previous researchers (e.g., Kammerer, 2002) to be
between 1.2 and 1.3. Dashti (2009) provided a summary of the specific gravities, minimum and
maximum void ratios, and minimum and maximum unit weights reported by previous researchers, and
this summary has been reproduced here as Table 3. The target parameters for this experiment and
reported in Table 3 were also employed by Dashti (2009).
TABLE 2. IMPORTANT SOIL PROPERTIES FOR NEVADA SAND
Quantity
Classification
Gradation
Specific Gravity1
D30
Value
Pyro Minerals, 2510 Wood Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Uniform, fine sand; SP
Poor
2.66
0.11 mm
D60
0.16 mm
Coefficient of Uniformity
γd,max (kN/m3)1
γd,min (kN/m3)1
2.07
17.2
14.7
Supplier
1
Provided by Cooper Labs (2010) and available on CGM wiki
TABLE 3. IMPORTANT SOIL PROPERTIES FOR MONTEREY 0/30 SAND (REPRODUCED FROM DASHTI, 2009)
Source
Method
Gs
emin
14
emax
γd,min
(kN/m3)
γd,max
(kN/m3)
Wu (1999)
Dry Tipping
2.64
0.541
0.855
13.96
16.81
NovaRoessing
(1998)
Modified
Japanese
-
0.53
0.83
14.15
16.93
Our Target
-
2.64
0.536
0.843
14.06
16.86
MODEL STRUCTURES
As mentioned previously, two types of model structures were used during Test-5: 'A' buildings
and 'J' buildings. Details regarding the design of the 'A' buildings are available in Dashti (2009) and
details regarding the design of the 'J' buildings are available in Allmond and Kutter (2012). Construction
drawings for these model structures are included in Appendix C of this report.
Please note from the construction drawings in Appendix C that there were a couple of minor
modifications made to the Test-5 'J' buildings relative to the buildings utilized by Allmond and Kutter
(2012): 1) The columns were welded to a column baseplate that could be bolted to the foundation. This
modification allowed for the foundations to be installed during the model construction phase in the model
preparation shop. The columns and deck masses could then be connected to the foundations following
model saturation. This was necessary because the columns and deck masses of the 'J' structures would
not fit underneath the lid used to seal the model during saturation. 2) The foundation of the 'J' building in
the southeast quadrant was connected to four 1 inch diameter (model scale) aluminum piles. The piles
were solid aluminum but they were counter-bored at the top with an inner diameter of 0.8 inches to a
depth of 0.5 inches. The centers of the piles were then threaded to accept 1/4" - 20 thread rod for an
additional 1.75 inches. Once sand was pluviated to the top of the piles during model construction the
connection between the piles and foundation then consisted of the following steps:
1) 1/4" thread rod was installed in each pile and tightened with a lock washer and hex nut;
2) A second hex nut was then spun down the thread rod and glued into place leaving approximately 1/4"
length of thread rod exposed between nuts;
3) Heat shrink tubing was then placed over the thread rod assembly to the top of the top hex nut and
shrunk into place;
5) Sand was pluviated around and between the piles to the top of the pile connection assembly;
6) Holes were then drilled through the 'J' building foundation at the appropriate locations and the
foundation was placed over the thread rod and on to washers placed on top of the hex nuts; and
7) The assembly was then tightened from the top.
The resulting connection was intended to minimize moment transfer between the piles and the
superstructure.
The remainder of this section contains a summary of the relevant measurements pertaining to the five 'A'
model structures and the two 'J' model structures that were used during Test-5. Table 4 and Table 6
provide a summary of each component used to assemble the 'A' model structures and 'J' model structures,
15
respectively. Table 7 summarizes relevant measurements for the piles. Table 5 and Table 8 summarize
the component ID's used to assemble each of the 'A' and 'J' model structures, respectively. Please note
that one 'A' model structure assembly consists of one footing, two foundation clamps, two columns, one
mass, and two mass clamps and one 'J' model structure assembly consists of one footing, one column, one
small mass, and one large mass. The as-built self-weight, and footing contact pressure are also indicated
in Table 5 and Table 8. The photographs in Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the assembled 'A' and 'J' model
structures. Figure 9 is a photograph of a single model pile.
TABLE 4. MEASURED DIMENSIONS OF 'A' MODEL STRUCTURE COMPONENTS (MODEL SCALE)
Model
Structure
Type
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Component
Type
Component
ID
x (mm)
y (mm)
z (mm)
Mass (g)
Footing
Footing
Footing
Footing
Footing
Foundation
Clamp
Foundation
Clamp
Foundation
Clamp
Foundation
Clamp
Foundation
Clamp
Foundation
Clamp
Foundation
Clamp
Foundation
Clamp
Foundation
Clamp
Foundation
Clamp
Foundation
Adapter
Foundation
Adapter
Foundation
Adapter
Foundation
Adapter
Foundation
Adapter
Column
Column
Column
A
B
C
D
E
165
165
165
165
165
110
110
110
111
111
15
15
15
14
15
647.5
661.5
645.7
656.4
650.6
A
101.5
12.5
9
24.9
B
101.5
12.5
9
24.8
C
101.5
12.5
9
24.8
D
101.5
12.5
9
24.8
E
101.5
12.5
9
25.7
F
101.5
12.5
9
25.3
G
101.5
12.5
9
24.8
H
101.5
12.5
9
24.8
I
101.5
12.5
9
25.7
J
101.5
12.5
9
25.3
A
101
48
13
138.6
B
101
48
13
142.9
C
101
48
13
141.2
D
101
48
13
141.2
E
101
48
13
141.2
A
B
C
101.5
101.5
101.5
67.5
67.5
67.5
1
1
1
60.7
60.7
60.5
16
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Column
Mass
Mass
Mass
Mass
Mass
Mass Clamp
Mass Clamp
Mass Clamp
Mass Clamp
Mass Clamp
Mass Clamp
Mass Clamp
Mass Clamp
Mass Clamp
Mass Clamp
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
101.5
101.5
101.5
101.5
101.5
101.5
101.5
114.5
114.5
114.5
114.5
114.5
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
67.5
67.5
67.5
67.5
67.5
67.5
67.5
48.5
48.5
48.5
48.5
48.5
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
19
19
19
19
19
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.0
6.0
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
60.6
63.2
63.4
63.6
63.1
60.7
59.4
789.9
789.1
789.6
779.8
786.5
100.0
99.9
99.9
100.0
99.9
97.1
97.0
99.9
100.2
100.0
TABLE 5. AS-BUILT 'A' MODEL STRUCTURES
Model
Structure
Type
Model
Structure ID
Assembly (Footing
ID, Foundation
Clamp IDs,
Foundation
Adapter ID,
Column IDs, Mass
Clamp IDs, Mass
ID)
A
A
A
A
A
NW
NE-N
NE-S
SW
SE
D,G,H,D,E,F,E,H,C
B,A,B,C,A,B,A,B,A
C,C,D,B,C,D,C,D,B
A,E,I,E,G,H,I,J,E
E,F,J,A,I,J,F,G,D
Prototype
Self-Weight
(kN)
Foundation
Contact
Pressure
(kPa)
3364
3365
3377
3386
3312
62
62
63
63
61
TABLE 6. MEASURED DIMENSIONS OF 'J' MODEL STRUCTURE COMPONENTS (MODEL SCALE)
Model
Structure
Type
J
J
J
J
J
Component
Type
Component
ID
x (mm)
y (mm)
z (mm)
Mass (g)
Footing
Footing
Column Top
Column Base
Column
Center
A
B
A
A
348
348
114.5
76
348
348
114.5
76
25.5
25.5
1162
1169
546
1174
A
19
38.1
17
J
J
Column Top
Column Base
Column
Center
Superstructure
Small Mass
Superstructure
Small Mass
J
J
J
Superstructure
Large Mass
Superstructure
Large Mass
J
J
B
B
114.5
76
114.5
76
B
19
38.1
A
114
B
546
1175
114
16
1595
114
114
16
1593
A
114
114
22
2234
B
114
114
22
2233
TABLE 7. MEASURED DIMENSIONS OF MODEL PILES (MODEL SCALE)
Model
Structure
Type
Component
Type
Component
ID
Diameter
(mm)
Length
(mm)
Mass (g)
J
J
J
J
Pile
Pile
Pile
Pile
A
B
C
D
37
35.5
36
35.5
273
273
273
273
376
377
376
376
TABLE 8. AS-BUILT 'J' MODEL STRUCTURES
Model
Structure
Type
Model
Structure
ID
Assembly
(Footing,
Column,
Small
Mass,
Large
Mass)
J
J
SW
SE
B,B,B,B
A,A,A,A
18
Piles
Prototype
SelfWeight
(kN)
Foundation
Contact
Pressure
(kPa)
No
Yes
10478
10472
186
186
FIGURE 7. ASSEMBLED 'A' MODEL STRUCTURES. MODEL STRUCTURE ON LEFT IS FULLY ASSEMBLED.
MODEL
STRUCTURE ON RIGHT SHOWS EXPOSED COLUMNS PRIOR TO CONNECTING MASS WITH MASS CLAMPS.
FIGURE 8. ASSEMBLED 'J' MODEL STRUCTURE.
19
FIGURE 9.
MODEL PILE
As illustrated in the photographs presented in Figure 7 and Figure 8, the footings of all model structures
were covered in Monterey 0/30 sand along the base and the sides. To do this, the smooth aluminum
footings were roughened with a wire brush and then coated with epoxy adhesive. Monterey 0/30 sand
was then spread over the epoxy and allowed to set. In a similar manner the model piles were covered in
Nevada sand.
MODEL CONSTRUCTION
The following steps provide a general outline of model construction:
1.
Prior to model construction, Nevada sand was obtained from the stockpile at the CGM and dried
in a large oven to make sure that there was no moisture in the soil during pluviation. Monterey
0/30 sand was also dried in the large oven prior to placement in the model container. In addition
to drying the soil, an attempt was made to mix the Nevada sand as much as practical as it was
obtained from the stockpile in order to maximize uniformity during placement.
20
FIGURE 10. LARGE OVEN USED FOR DRYING SOIL AND
2.
ROLLING CONTAINER USED FOR TRANSPORT AND MIXING SOIL.
The instrumentation used for Test-5 was prepared for installation: ICP accelerometers were
checked to make sure they were working and then waterproofed using a coat of primer followed
by one to three coats of synthetic rubber (Plasti Dip). Calibration values for the linear
potentiometers (LPs) and pore pressure transducers (PPTs) were determined by following
calibration procedures under the guidance of CGM staff. PPTs were dried prior to installation in
the model.
21
FIGURE 11. (TOP LEFT) ICP ACCELEROMETERS WERE COATED IN SYNTHETIC RUBBER. (TOP RIGHT) SET UP FOR
DETERMINING CALIBRATION VALUES OF LPS. (BOTTOM) SET UP FOR DETERMINING CALIBRATION VALUES OF PPTS.
3.
The model structures were prepared for installation. This included cleaning all parts, applying
Monterey sand around the base and the sides of the 'A' building and 'J' building footings,
assembling the model structures, and installing the LP mounts. Model piles were coated in
Nevada sand. The masses of the model structure were also wrapped in checkered contact paper
to reduce light reflection and improve high speed and analog camera photo quality.
FIGURE 12. (A) BASE AND SIDES OF FOUNDATION ELEMENTS WERE ROUGHENED UP. (B) A THIN LAYER OF MONTEREY
SAND WAS COATED ON THE BASE AND SIDES OF THE FOUNDATION ELEMENTS USING EPOXY ADHESIVE .
22
4.
The model container (FSB 2.1) was obtained and cleaned. As illustrated in Figure 3, this
container has approximate internal model scale dimensions of 1650 mm (length) by 790 mm
(width) by 580 mm (height). The coordinates used to identify the locations of instrumentation
and the model structures are relative to an origin at the northwest corner of the inside of the
model container with the x-axis measured in the north-south direction (increasing to the south),
the y-axis measured in the east-west direction (increasing to the east) and the z-axis measured
vertically (increasing from the top of the container to the bottom of the container). This
coordinate system is shown on Figure 3 and is consistent with the coordinate system used in
previous NCB experiments.
5.
Subsurface saturation system components were installed. This consisted of the following:
Twelve rectangular porous stones were installed at the base of the model container (six were
installed at the north end and six at the south end). Each of the porous stones was connected to
two plastic tubes. The larger of the two plastic tubes was sized such that it would connect to the
saturation troughs during saturation and thus provided a conduit for pore fluid so that the model
could be saturated from the bottom up. The smaller of the two plastic tubes was routed along the
sides of the model container to above the future soil surface and was intended to provide a means
for air bubbles to escape during saturation. Figure 13 is a photograph showing a plan view of the
subsurface saturation system components.
Small tubes provide
conduit for air bubbles to
escape during saturation
Porous Stones
Large tubes connected to
saturation troughs during
model saturation
Saturation Trough
FIGURE 13. PLAN VIEW PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SUBSURFACE COMPONENTS OF THE MODEL SATURATION
SYSTEM. SATURATION TROUGHS ARE ALSO SHOWN FOR REFERENCE.
23
6.
Instrumentation was installed on the base of the container. ICP accelerometers were seated in
modeling clay and PPTs were seated on a thin layer of Nevada sand. Instrumentation cables were
routed up the interior side walls of the model container and secured using duct tape.
PPTs
ICP Accelerometers
FIGURE 14. PLAN VIEW PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BASE INSTRUMENTATION
7.
The container weight was measured.
8.
Nevada and Monterey 0/30 sand were pluviated in lifts of varying thickness. Lift thicknesses
were controlled by the instrumentation location plan and the structural location plan. All sand was
placed by dry pluviation into the model container. Three pluviators were used to place the
respective layers of dense Nevada sand, loose to medium dense Nevada sand, and dense
Monterey sand. Each of the three pluviators was calibrated to place material at the desired dry
density using a calibration chamber of known volume. The calibration process consisted of
adjusting the drop height and flow rate of the sand until the correct weight of sand was measured
for the known volume of the calibration chamber.
24
FIGURE 15. (TOP LEFT) CALIBRATION OF LARGE PLUVIATOR. (TOP RIGHT) PLACING DENSE NEVADA SAND USING
LARGE PLUVIATOR. (MIDDLE LEFT) CALIBRATING THE MEDIUM PLUVIATOR FOR LOOSE-MEDIUM DENSE NEVADA
SAND (MIDDLE RIGHT) PLACING LOOSE-MEDIUM DENSE NEVADA SAND. (BOTTOM) PLACING DENSE MONTEREY
SAND.
25
9.
Each lift of dense Nevada sand was also vibrated using an electric vibratory plate, as shown in
Figure 16. While the objective was to make the dense Nevada sand as dense as possible, care was
also taken to apply an equal amount of vibration to each lift of dense Nevada sand to minimize
variability in the density within and between each lift.
FIGURE 16. VIBRATION OF DENSE NEVADA SAND
10. After each lift was pluviated, the surface of the soil was groomed to the desired elevation using a
vacuum cleaner. Prior to each grooming session the vacuum cleaner filter was blown out with
compressed air. Additionally, the hoses were kept clear of sand during the grooming process.
These steps were necessary to ensure a constant suction height during grooming so that a correct
final elevation could be achieved. After the lifts were finished to the correct elevation, the weight
of the model was measured to get an estimate of the average relative density of the lift. Model
weight measurements were performed until the model weight exceeded the capacity of the crane.
FIGURE 17. VACUUMING TO PROPER ELEVATION
26
11. The desired location of each instrument was marked on the surface of each lift and the
instruments were carefully placed. Instrumentation cables were routed along the side walls of the
model container and secured with duct tape.
12. When the surface of the soil was finished at a depth corresponding to approximately 50mm above
the toe depth of the piles, the piles were installed at the appropriate locations by driving the piles
into the dense Nevada sand using a rubber mallet. The piles were then checked with a bullseye
bubble level and a small carpenter's level to ensure they were plumb.
FIGURE 18. INSTALLATION OF MODEL PILES
13. When the top of the dense Nevada sand layer was reached, a very thin layer of blue sand was
spread over the surface to act as a marker during excavation following the test. An additional thin
layer of blue sand was placed at the top of the loose-medium dense Nevada sand layer.
27
FIGURE 19. THIN LAYER OF COLORED SAND AT TOP OF DENSE NEVADA SAND LAYER
14. The soil surface was brought to an elevation just above the elevation of the base of the model
structure foundations. At this point the foundation for the pile supported 'J' model structure was
connected to the previously installed piles. Thread rod was threaded into the tops of the exposed
piles. The tips of the thread rod were coated using a paint pen and the footing of the 'J' model
structure was pressed lightly over the thread rods to mark the as-built pile locations. Four holes
were then drilled through the 'J' model structure footing and the piles were connected to the
footing using a hex nut and washers.
15. Given that the model structures were located off of the center line of the model container in the
east-west direction, it was important to account for the radial gravitational field produced by the
centrifuge when placing the model structures. Accordingly, the soil surface was sloped such that
the model structures were placed with an initial tilt of approximately 1 degree towards the center
of the container. The center of the model structures were placed at the design footing base depth.
After placing the structures, the soil surface was curved up between the center of the container
and the eastern and western container sides so that the gravitational field would be approximately
normal to the surface along the transverse direction of the container.
16. The displacement rack was constructed on the model container in the model preparation shop
with the structures in place. It was designed to be as stiff as possible to minimize both static
deflections due to increased self-weight and dynamic deflections during strong shaking. Linear
potentiometers (LPs) were mounted in holders and the holders were attached to the displacement
28
rack using standard hardware. The tips of the LPs were either positioned to directly measure the
displacement of a location, or placed on stiff flags added to the structures at locations where
direct measurement of displacement was difficult or not possible to access. The displacement
rack and the 'J' structure columns and masses were removed from the model after the
displacement rack was constructed.
17. The model was transported from the model preparation shop to the centrifuge and mounted on the
centrifuge arm.
18. The model was saturated with the HPMC and water pore fluid solution described previously.
Saturation consisted of covering and sealing the model with an air tight lid, applying a vacuum to
remove air from the pores, slowly releasing the vacuum and filling the pore space with carbon
dioxide, and then re-applying the vacuum. While the model was under vacuum, the de-aired pore
fluid solution was dripped into the saturation troughs and, through the large tubes connected to
the saturation troughs, into the soil. Valves were used to control the flow rate of de-aired pore
fluid into the saturation troughs.
FIGURE 20. SATURATION SET-UP
19. After approximately 95 hours of model saturation, the model had taken approximately 60% of the
theoretical required amount of pore fluid. At this point the pore fluid was allowed to overflow the
metal saturation troughs and drip through several sponges into narrow saturation trenches on the
soil surface to speed up the rate of progress. The idea with this procedure was to allow for the
pore fluid to fill the soil pore space from both the bottom of the container (i.e., through the tubes
connected to the saturation troughs) and through the surface of the container along the northern
29
and southern edges of the container. Care was taken so as to not overflow the surface trenches.
Pore fluid was introduced into the model up to the point where it was ponded across the surface
of the entire model. The vacuum pressure was then released and the saturation lid was removed.
FIGURE 21. SPONGES UNDERNEATH SATURATION TROUGH
20. The columns and masses of the 'J' structures were bolted to their foundations.
21. The displacement gauge rack was installed and all instrumentation wiring was routed to the north
end of the model container along the sides of the container or through the two longitudinal
channel pipes that made up part of the displacement rack.
22. Instrumentation cables were plugged into the appropriate channels and signals were checked on
the DAQ.
23. High-speed cameras, analog cameras, and LED lights were placed and connected.
30
FIGURE 22. PLAN VIEW OF MODEL WITH DISPLACEMENT RACK FOLLOWING SATURATION
24. After the final inspection, the model was ready for spin-up.
AS-BUILT MODEL
As indicated on Figure 3, the positions of the model structures and the thickness of the soil
layers were typically within 2 mm of the design model geometry. Consequently, for all intents and
purposes, the dimensions indicated on Figure 3 can be considered as‐built dimensions.
As also described above, the thicknesses of each pluviation lift were controlled by the
instrumentation layout plan and the structural layout plan. Estimates of the achieved relative density of
most lifts were obtained by weighing the model before and after each lift and taking nine measurements
spaced evenly on the surface to estimate the achieved lift thickness. For thinner layers, measurement
error had a greater effect on the reported relative densities. In addition to the container weight
measurements during pluviation, a pre-shake CPT was performed to assess the initial soil conditions and
the CPT-based relative density correlations developed by Salgado et al. (1997) and Jamiolkowski et al.
(2001) were employed to provide an alternative means to estimate the relative density. The best estimates
of the as-built relative density for each layer are indicated in Table 9. These estimates include
consideration of pre-pluviation calibration, measurements taken during pluviation, and the CPT-based
relative density correlations. Please note that the container weights could only be measured until the
capacity of the crane in the model preparation shop was reached.
31
Twenty-seven viscosity tests of the pore fluid were performed just prior to and during model
saturation using an Ubbelohde type viscometer. While there was some variability in the test results due to
fluid temperature fluctuations, the average of the twenty-seven tests suggests the pore fluid had a
kinematic viscosity of approximately 21-22 times that of water.
Based upon the mean hydrostatic pore water pressure from the functional PPTs, the groundwater
table was approximately 0.50 m (prototype) below the ground surface just prior to the PRI_mod
simulated ground motion, and approximately 0.87 m (prototype) below the ground surface just prior to
the TCU_mod and PRI_large ground motions.
Instrumentation locations are indicated on Figures 4‐6 and the coordinates of the soils
instrumentation, relative to the origin at the northwest corner of the top of the top ring of the
model container, are provided on the sensor sheets that have been uploaded to NEEShub.
TABLE 9. ESTIMATED SOIL PROFILE FROM MEASUREMENTS DURING PLUVIATION.
Layer
Number
Elevation of
Layer Base
(mm)
Elevation of
Layer Top
(mm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
582
555
525
476
432
399
379
332
298
262
231
190
153
148
555
525
476
432
399
379
332
298
262
231
190
153
148
129*
15
129*
114*
Soil
Description
Best Estimate
of Average
Relative
Density (%)
Dense Nevada
Sand
85 +/- 5
Loose-Medium
Dense Nevada
Sand
Dense
Monterey 0/30
Sand
40 +/- 5
85
*INDICATES THE ELEVATION OF THE LAYER VARIED ALONG THE TRANSVERSE DIRECTION OF THE CONTAINER TO ACCOUNT FOR THE
RADIAL GRAVITATIONAL FIELD CREATED BY THE CENTRIFUGE.
INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENTS
Four instrument types were used for this test: integrated circuit piezoelectric (ICP)
accelerometers, micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) accelerometers, pore pressure transducers
(PPTs), and linear potentiometers (LP). As mentioned previously, a total of 61 ICP accelerometers, 18
MEMS, 26 PPTs, and 32 LPs were incorporated into the test plan. The cone penetration test (CPT) was
32
performed using a system consisting of two load cells (LC) and one LP. The instrumentation tables in
Appendices A and B summarize the instrumentation used for each specific spin.
The ICP and MEMS accelerometers had ranges of ±100 g. Linear potentiometers were used with
strokes of 1 in (25 mm), 2 in (50 mm), 3 in (75 mm), and 4 in (100 mm). The PPTs had ranges of 50 psi
(345 kPa), 100 psi (689 kPa), or 200 psi (1379 kPa). Each instrument has either a factory calibrated (ICP
and MEMs accelerometers) or CGM calibrated (LPs and PPTs) sensitivity factor, which is included in the
instrumentation list in the Appendices.
Four high-speed cameras were also used for this test. The high-speed cameras record a maximum
duration of 20 sec at a rate of 210 frames/sec. For the purposes of this data report, the high speed cameras
will be referred to as HS1 through HS4. HS1 was elevated above the top of the model container within
the southern half of the model and viewed north to capture the adjacent 'A' buildings in the northeast
quadrant, HS2 was located on the CPT rack guide rails above the southwest corner of the model and
viewed northeast to capture the southwest quadrant, HS3 was located on the CPT rack guide rails above
the model at the northwest corner and viewed east to capture the isolated 'A' building in the northwest
quadrant, and HS4 was located on the CPT rack guide rails above the southeast corner of the model and
viewed northwest to capture the 'A' building adjacent to the 'J' building on piles. High-speed captures
recorded during the simulated ground motions have been converted to prototype speed (1/N of the
captured rate) and uploaded to NEEShub (www.nees.org).
Analog cameras, capable of capturing video at 20 frames/sec, were utilized to capture images of
important locations before and after each ground motion. Table 10 contains information about the analog
cameras and their locations. More information about the camera specifications is provided at the CGM
website (http://nees.ucdavis.edu/). The raw analog camera files recorded during the simulated ground
motions have also been uploaded to NEEShub.
TABLE 10. ANALOG CAMERA PLACEMENTS AND THEIR PURPOSES.
Camera
Channel
View
Purpose
2
3
6
9
11
13
14
15
16
Profile of NE Quadrant from East Wall
Profile of NW Quadrant from West Wall
Profile of North Quadrants from North Wall
Observation Well at SE Corner from Disp. Rack
Plan view of Centrifuge Bucket from Arm
SE Quadrant from East Wall
SW Quadrant from West Wall
Bucket Level on North Side
Bucket Level on South Side
Monitor building response
Monitor building response
Monitor building response
Monitor groundwater level
Monitor bucket
Monitor building response
Monitor building response
Monitor bucket
Monitor bucket
CENTRIFUGE TEST CHRONOLOGY
33
The centrifuge was spun once on 03/15/2012 and twice on 03/19/2012. The desired g-level (N)
during both spins was 55g at the center of the layer of loose to medium dense Nevada sand,
corresponding to an effective radius of approximately 8.53 m. One cone penetration test (CPT) was
performed on 03/15/2012, prior to application the shaking events. Two step waves and one simulated
ground motion were performed on 03/15/2012 and four step waves and four simulated ground motions
were performed on 03/19/2012. Step waves were used primarily to warm-up the centrifuge shaking table
and check critical instrumentation. Table 11 contains the testing schedule used for Test-5. Table 12
contains a list of the data and instrumentation files for Test-5. The instrumentation and raw data files
have been uploaded to NEEShub.
TABLE 11. TEST-5 TESTING SEQUENCE
Spin ID
Date
ID
Input File
Frequency (Hz)
Amp. Factor
N/A
4000
4000
2750
N/A
0.9
0.9
0.5
Step.txt
Step.txt
4000
4000
0.9
0.9
Step.txt
Step.txt
Kobe0807.txt
Kobe0807.txt
Kobe0807.txt
Kobe0807.txt
4000
4000
2750
2750
2750
2750
0.9
0.9
0.5
1.7
0.36
5.1
I
CPT1
N/A
SW1
Step.txt
3/15/2012
SW2
Step.txt
PRI_small Kobe0807.txt
II
3/19/2012
III
SW5
SW6
PRI_small
3/19/2012
PRI_mod
TCU_mod
PRI_large
SW3
SW4
TABLE 12. DATA AND INSTRUMENTATION FILES FOR TEST-5
Spin ID
Motion
NEEShub
TrialRepetition
NEEShub Raw
Data File
I-1
cpt1.txt
I-2
I-3
I-4
sw1.txt
sw2.txt
pri_small.txt
03_19_2012
Instrumentation
II-1
II-2
sw3.txt
sw4.txt
03_19_2012
Instrumentation
III-1
III-2
III-3
III-4
III-5
sw5.txt
sw6.txt
pri_small.txt
pri_mod.txt
tcu_mod.txt
Instrumentation
File
CPT1
I
II
III
SW1
SW2
PRI_small
SW3
SW4
SW5
SW6
PRI_small
PRI_mod
TCU_mod
03_15_2012
Instrumentation
34
PRI_large
III-6
pri_large.txt
DATA PROCESSING
During shaking events data was collected from all instruments at a sampling frequency of 4096
Hz (model scale) utilizing a user interface coded in LabView. The raw data was converted to engineering
units by employing appropriate sensitivity factors, which are linear factors with units of engineering
unit/Volt. For the ICP and MEMS accelerometers, these sensitivity factors are determined and specified
by the manufacturer. For the PPTs and LPs, the researcher must determine these sensitivity factors by
individually calibrating the sensors before each test. The sign conventions established for this project
follow a global coordinate system, where south, east, and down (into the soil) are positive and north,
west, and up are negative. Coordinates are defined relative to an origin at the northwest corner of the top
ring of the container (Figure 3). Once voltages are converted to engineering units, the measurements
must then be multiplied by a ‘direction vector’ (either +1 or -1) to account for the orientation of the
instrument. For sensors where the measurements are expected to be small, a gain value greater than 1 is
used to boost the recorded signal. The gain value must then be divided out of the raw voltage values
before the ‘engineering unit’ data is finalized. The data presented in the appendices of this report has been
converted to engineering units, and corrected for gains and instrument orientation, using Matlab. In
addition, accelerometers and LPs were further processed to remove the initial voltage offsets. This was
accomplished by subtracting the mean of the first 100 samples of each record. The Test-4 data report
describes the logic behind this in detail. For reference, the instrumentation lists provided within
Appendices A and B include the sensitivity factors for each sensor, as well as direction vectors and gain
values. As has been mentioned in previous data reports, signal processing is an important part of
interpreting all data. All the data shown in the appendices of this report is unfiltered.
CONE PENETRATION TESTING
One CPT was performed on the Test-5 model at the location indicated on Figure 3. This CPT
was performed while the model was spinning at approximately 75.9 RPM and was intended to provide an
alternative means to evaluate the initial approximate relative density of the soil prior to the application of
step waves and simulated ground motions. The empirical correlations of Salgado et al. (1997) and
Jamiolkowski et al. (2001) have been applied to the CPT data for this purpose. Results from these
correlations are summarized in Figure 23. The data file for this test is summarized in Table 12.
35
0
2
2
4
4
6
6
Prototype Depth (m)
Prototype Depth (m)
0
8
10
12
8
10
12
14
14
16
16
18
18
20
0
5
10
15
20
25
CPT Tip Resistance (MPa)
30
20
Jamiolkowski et al. (2001)
Salgado et al. (1997)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Relative Density
0.8
1
FIGURE 23. CPT TIP RESISTANCE AND CORRELATED RELATIVE DENSITY VS DEPTH
Due to a channel configuration error, the CPT tip displacement data was not recorded during the
CPT push. Consequently, for the purposes of these preliminary analyses, a push rate of 2 cm/s has been
assumed. This is generally consistent with the push rate observed during CPTs in previous NCB
experiments. More information regarding the CPT system used at the CGM can be found in the Test-4
data report (i.e., Trombetta et al., 2011).
KNOWN LIMITATIONS
Several of the PPT connectors were exposed to pore fluid while the model was under vacuum
during model saturation. This was recognized during model saturation and the research team, along with
help from the CGM staff, attempted to minimize this exposure as much as possible. Despite these efforts,
many of the PPTs were found to be not functioning properly when their signals were checked after model
saturation. A large amount of effort was put into troubleshooting and attempting to repair the PPTs with
bad signals, but, unfortunately, some were unable to be repaired and did not function properly during
Test-5.
After connecting the 'J' model building superstructures after saturation it was observed that the 'J'
building in the southwest quadrant was tilted approximately 2.5 degrees to the east. In order to account
for the radial gravitational field, the model structures were intended to be tilted just over 1 degree towards
the center of the model container. To correct for this overtilt of the southwest 'J' building, a structural
36
shim was designed and installed between the column baseplate and the foundation. The shim was 3
inches by 3 inches and 0.1 inches thick on the east side and 0.175 inches thick on the west side. An
oppositely tapered shim was installed on top of the column baseplate so that the hardware used to connect
the assembly could be tightened properly. Details of the shim can be found in Appendix C of this report.
Instruments that did not appear to functioning properly were tracked during each of the spins. A
summary of instruments that appeared to be not functioning or had questionable or noisy signals during
Spin III is provided in Table 13. Please note that this list is not intended to be exhaustive and is based
only upon a visual inspection of the data in LabView during Spin III. All data, regardless of quality, is
presented in the appendices of this report. Also, as mentioned previously, it was recognized that the CPT
tip displacement data was not recorded during the CPT due to a channel configuration error.
TABLE 13. NON-WORKING AND QUESTIONABLE SENSORS DURING TEST-5 SPIN III
Channel
PCB1-12
PCB1-13
PCB1-14
PCB2-4
PCB2-6
PCB2-8
PCB2-13
PCB3-6
PCB4-2
PCB4-10
PCB4-11
ProgB1-0
ProgB1-1
ProgB1-2
ProgB1-3
ProgB1-5
ProgB1-7
ProgB2-0
ProgB2-5
ProgB2-6
ProgB3-0
ProgA1-0
ProgA1-1
ProgA1-2
ProgA1-3
ProgA1-4
ProgA1-5
ProgA2-2
ProgA4-1
ProgA4-3
PT1-2
PT3-4
PT3-6
Iso1-1
Iso2-4
Instrument Name
SA_FF1_154
SA_FF1_192
SAV_FF1_Sfc
SA_NW_2_154
SA_SE_1_154
SA_FF2_154
A_NE_1_E_x
A_SE_2_S_z
A_NW_S_z
SA_FF2_B
SA_SE_2_154
PPT_NW_1_229
PPT_NE_S_192
PPT_NE_1_229
PPT_FF1_229
PPT_SW_2_154
PPT_NE_2_S_192
PPT_SW_2_229
PPT_SE_2_154
PPT_NE_C_192
PPT_FF1_Base
PPT_FF2_Base
PPT_NW_C_192
PPT_NW_2_192
PPT_SW_2_192
PPT_SW_1_192
PPT_NW_1_192
PPT_NE_2_C_192
A_SE_1_roof_y
A_SW_1_roof_y
D_NE_2_S_x
D_NW_1_N_x
D_soil_e_sfc
D_NE_1_N_x
D_SW_1_SWC_z
Motions with Issues
pri_large
pri_large
pri_small,
pri_large
pri_small, pri_mod, tcu_mod
pri_large
pri_small,
pri_large
pri_large
pri_large
pri_large
pri_large
pri_small, tcu_mod, pri_large
pri_small, tcu_mod, pri_large
pri_small, pri_mod, tcu_mod, pri_large
pri_small, pri_mod, tcu_mod, pri_large
tcu_mod, pri_large
pri_small, pri_mod, tcu_mod, pri_large
pri_mod, tcu_mod
pri_small, pri_mod, tcu_mod, pri_large
pri_small, pri_mod, tcu_mod
tcu_mod
pri_small, pri_mod, tcu_mod, pri_large
pri_small, tcu_mod
pri_small,
pri_mod, tcu_mod, pri_large
pri_small, pri_mod, tcu_mod, pri_large
pri_small, pri_mod, tcu_mod, pri_large
pri_small, tcu_mod
tcu_mod, pri_large
pri_mod, pri_large
pri_large
tcu_mod
tcu_mod
tcu_mod
37
ORGANIZATION OF APPENDICES
The organization of the Appendices is provided in Table 14. Appendices A and B are dedicated
to presenting the data collected during Test-5 and contain the relevant instrumentation lists. The data is
presented in engineering units and has been processed in accordance with the procedures described in the
"Data Processing" section of this report. All data has been uploaded to NEESHub (www.nees.org) and
can be downloaded in raw units (voltage), or in engineering units at prototype scale. Construction
drawings for the model structures used in Test-5 are included in Appendix C.
TABLE 14. ORGANIZATION OF TEST-5 DATA REPORT APPENDICES
Appendix
Data
A
Engineering Unit Data for 3/15/2012
B
Engineering Unit Data for 3/19/2012
C
Model Structure Construction Drawings
38
REFERENCES
Allmond, J., and Kutter, B.L. (2012). “Centrifuge Testing of Rocking Foundations on Saturated
and Submerged Sand: Centrifuge Data Report for JDA01,” University of California at Davis Center for
Geotechnical Modeling Report No. UCD/CGMDR-12/01, Davis, CA.
Dashti, S. (2009) "Toward evaluating building performance on softened ground."
dissertation, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Ph.D.
Dashti, S., Bray, J.D., Pestana, J.M., Riemer, M.R., and Wilson, D. (2010a) "Mechanisms of
seismically-induced settlement of buildings with shallow foundations on liquefiable soil." J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 136(1), 151-164.
Dashti, S., Bray, J.D., Pestana, J.M., Riemer, M.R., and Wilson, D. (2010b) "Centrifuge testing to
evaluate and mitigate liquefaction-induced building settlement mechanisms." J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 136(7), 918-929.
Hausler, E.A. (2002) "Influence of ground improvement on settlement and liquefaction: A study
based on field case history evidence and dynamic geotechnical centrifuge tests." Ph.D. dissertation, Univ.
of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Kammerer, A., Pestana, J., and Seed, R. (2002). "Undrained Response of 0/30 Sand Under
Multidirectional Cyclic Simple Shear Loading Conditions." Geotechnical Engineering Research Report
No. UCB/GT/02-01, University of California, Berkeley, July, 2002.
Kutter B.L. (1995). Recent advances in centrifuge modeling of seismic shaking. Proceedings of
the Third International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics, Prakash S (ed.), St. Louis, MO, 1995.
Mason et al. (2010a). “Seismic Performance Assessment in Dense Urban Environments:
Centrifuge data report for HBM02,” University of California at Davis Center for Geotechnical Modeling
Report No. UCD/CGMDR-XX/XX, Davis, CA.
Mason et al. (2010b). “Seismic Performance Assessment in Dense Urban Environments:
Centrifuge data report for HBM03,” University of California at Davis Center for Geotechnical Modeling
Report No. UCD/CGMDR-XX/XX, Davis, CA.
Mason et al. (2010c). “Seismic Performance Assessment in Dense Urban Environments:
Centrifuge data report for HBM04,” University of California at Davis Center for Geotechnical Modeling
Report No. UCD/CGMDR-03/11, Davis, CA.
Mason, H.B. (2011). Seismic Performance Assessment in Dense Urban Environments. Ph.D.
thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Mason, H. B., Trombetta, N. W., Chen, Z., Bray, J. D., Hutchinson, T. C., and Kutter, B. L.
(2013). "Seismic soil–foundation–structure interaction observed in geotechnical centrifuge experiments."
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 48, 162-174, 10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.01.014.
39
Stewart, D.P., Chen, Y.R., and Kutter, B.L. (1998). “Experience with the use of methylcellulose
as a viscous pore fluid in centrifuge models.” ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, 21(4), 365-369.
Trombetta, N. W., Zupan, J. D., Bolisetti, C., Puangnak, H., Jones, K. C., Tran, J. K., Bassal, B.,
Bray, J. D., Hutchinson, T. C., Fiegel, G. L., Kutter, B., and Whittaker, A. S. (2011). "Seismic
peformance assessment in dense urban environments: Centrifuge Data Report for NWT01, Report No.
UCD/CGMDR-04/11." Center for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California, Davis.
Trombetta, N. W., Mason, H. B., Chen, Z., Hutchinson, T. C., Bray, J. D., and Kutter, B. L.
(2013). "Nonlinear dynamic foundation and frame structure response observed in geotechnical centrifuge
experiments." Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 50, 117-133, 10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.02.010.
Wu, J. (2003). "Liquefaction Triggering and Post Liquefaction Deformations of Monterey 0/30
Sand Under Uni-Directional Cyclic Simple Shear Loading." Ph.D. thesis, University of California,
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
40